Supreme Court 2A second amendment
Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

 

You wouldn’t think that you could write an article about the potential outcomes of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen without talking to at least one person on the plaintiffs’ side of the case, but the hacks at Fast Company managed to do just that.

Even if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it’s hard to predict how broad its decision may be. A narrow ruling could involve striking down the “proper cause” requirement for a permit. New York would struggle to restrict guns in public, and may have to start issuing concealed carry permits. The ruling may also extend to the remaining nine may-issue states, including California, Maryland, and Massachusetts, at a time when gun violence is rising across the U.S. Still, this is the best-case scenario.
 
If the ruling is more expansive, it could ditch the entire public-safety framework that lower courts have been using to uphold carry restrictions. It could provide a whole new basis for future decisions—on all kinds of gun regulation lawsuits currently in limbo, and supported by the gun lobby, relating to assault weapons bans, large-magazine bans, and the minimum age for the sale of handguns. They could fundamentally redefine the Second Amendment and change America’s gun laws.

“That could be a really devastating decision that could have wide-ranging—and I think, not currently fathomable—impacts,” [Giffords Law Center deputy chief counsel David] Pucino says. “Because, it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.”

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

89 COMMENTS

    • Here we all are in the United States of America 2022 watching another so called court case where it all basically boils down to Gun Control VS The Second Amendment. On one side of the courtroom sits The Second Amendment which history confirms without doubt is a hard won cherished freedom. On the other side of the courtroom sits Gun Control which history has confirmed is an agenda rooted in racism and genocide.

      Will the court uphold its oath To Protect and Defend The Constitution of The United States and stand firm with a hard won Red, White and Blue Freedom? Or will the court cower down on the behalf of Gun Control which history has confirmed is an agenda concocted by racists and nazis?

      Had Gun Control been properly defined by its racist and genocide roots perhaps America would see Gun Control for what it really is and such needless courtroom drama wouldn’t exist anymore than it exists for slave shacks, nooses, cross burning, concentration camps, gas chambers, swastikas and the like.

      • “Had Gun Control been properly defined by its racist and genocide roots perhaps America would see Gun Control for what it really is…”

        ‘Fraid not. As in so many cases before, the anti-gunners would simply state, “That was then, this is now; common sense gun control applies to everyone, regardless of race.”

        • RE: Sam You Are…‘Fraid not. As in so many cases before, the anti-gunners would simply state, “That was then, this is now; common sense gun control applies to everyone, regardless of race.”

          Care to cite one of your “so many cases before” where Gun Control has ever been properly defined by its racist and genocide roots in a court, on the evening news, etc? When you find a case LMK.

          RE: Sam You Are…“That was then, this is now; common sense gun control applies to everyone, regardless of race.”

          In a nutshell Gun Control back “Then” applied first to Black Americans and nazis came along looked at Jim Crow law and simply removed Black and inserted, “Jew.” Now today after all that history of racism and genocide from back then basic common sense says an agenda like Gun Control is incapable of producing any common sense. Bottom like…Common Sense Gun Control is a sneaky plate of sugarcoated poop cookies intended for fools and useful idiots.

        • A number of minority rights advocates including NYC public defenders disagreed and filed amicus briefs saying the law was racist, as written, and as enforced, claiming 96% of defendants under the law were minorities.

  2. Yep. Keep it illegal to have guns in public in an effort to reduce what they call “gun violence” while doing nothing to prevent gangs, criminals, and lunatics from having guns in public creating what they call “gun violence”.

    lol
    and it’s all being refered to as “common sense gun control”.

    And we are all told to ‘trust’ our dear (Democrat) leaders?

    • If the ruling goes as it should , in favor of the Second Amendment , who is going to enforce it when it is ignored like they are doing with the border invasion ?

      • At that point when they ignore the ruling, it’s time for the people to ignore them and carry anyway. Let the lawsuits begin.

        • I’m sorry, I’m obviously missing something . . . looks very much, to me, as if our courts have been taking a large crap all over the SCOTUS’ rulings on the 2A. So, I carry, and the local jurisdiction I am in is welcome to osculate my anal sphincter. Have been doing that for years. What more “evidence” do you need that courts are ignoring SCOTUS AND the 2A????

    • “…while doing nothing to prevent gangs, criminals, and lunatics from having guns in public creating what they call “gun violence”.”

      Actually, they are more likely to describe it as “Settling a business dispute”… 😉

  3. “They could fundamentally redefine the Second Amendment and change America’s gun laws.”

    Not “fundamentally redefine”, just restore the original meaning of the Second Amendment in a manner consistent with the Founder’s intent.

    • Bear me to it. EVERY law regulating guns is un-Constitutional, by definition, or they would be if we had actual patriot citizens in our governments at all levels.

    • That’s exactly what I wanted to say. The 2nd was perfectly defined when it was written. The authors said exactly what they meant, and meant exactly what they said. The fact that the English language has changed some since then, doesn’t change the words they wrote, or their intentions. Any legal scholar can interpret it into modern English, unless said legal scholar has an agenda.

  4. “… it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.”

    Sounds great! I’ll take two family-sized buckets of that, with a side of mac and cheese, thanks.

    • 👍
      Imagine purchasing a threaded barrel firearm that ACTUALLY comes with a suppressor! 🤔
      No tax stamp $s and long wait times.

      It a hearing protection device FCS.
      Should be strongly recommended by OSHA, NOT restricted by the NFA!

      • James,

        Personally, the laws restricting suppressors are the most extreme example of legislative stupidity in re: firearms. A “silencer” (damn you, Hiram Maxim!!) doesn’t “silence” a freakin’ thing. The best commercially-available “silencers” reduce noise signature by about 25 db.

        BFD. Still usually in excess of 100 db. But, the hearing of EVERYONE within 100yds is protected. And that’s bad because why?????

        Firearms should come standard with suppressors.

        • “But, the hearing of EVERYONE within 100yds is protected. And that’s bad because why?????”

          Because…

          Back in the day, “the mob” could use suppressors/silencers to hide their assassinations or rival gang members. If nobody could hear the shootings (like, you know, people in the next apartment), then the cops couldn’t be called to the scene, and catch the shooter escaping. Another benefit for hit men was that silencers would allow the hit to go unnoticed for days (even revolvers with silencers would only go “ppppfffttt”). Cops couldn’t do much with “cold” cases.

          (I know all this because I grew up watching “The Untouchables” TV show)

        • Except, Sam, that

          (1) “silencers” reduce perceived sound signature by MAYBE 25 db, so, no, you can’t “hide your assassinations”;

          (2) EVERYONE in the immediate vicinity of a gun discharge is at risk of hearing damage – doesn’t it make more sense to put ONE hearing protection device on the instrument that is making the loud noise, rather than requiring everyone within 100 yds. to wear ‘cans’ to avoid hearing loss??

          Sorry, just a private peeve of mine. The whole thing about “silencers” is just SUCH complete bulls*** that I get a little ticked off about it. A significant advance in ACTUAL gun safety is blocked by an idiot law, passed by idiot legislators, and championed by idiot Leftist/fascists (like MajorStupidity and Eric “FangBanger” Swallowswell). I truly believe all firearms should come with a threaded barrel and a suppressor.

        • Or even an integral suppressor to remove a potential point of failure.

          It was probably sarcasm, but just in case: revolvers can’t be suppressed because of the cylinder gap. With the exception of one pre-WW1 Russian design that used a secondary housing to seal the cylinder gap before firing.

        • The OSS fielded an integrally suppressed .22, the High Standard H-DM/s that, with the slide locked, was reputed to make little more noise than the hammer hitting the firing pin. So it was possible for very quiet “wet work.”

        • It’s amazing the number of people who quite clearly don’t use suppressors who comment on them incessantly.

          Just a single point to keep it entirely academic; Sound doubles in perceived loudness every 10dB, pressure every 6dB and power every 3dB.

          So how, exactly, is cutting 25dB not a big fuckin’ deal?

          Something older like a TBAC .223P is enough to take a 16″ barrel pushing full speed 5.56 pills, being fired within 3 feet of a cement wall, down to the point that your electronic ear-pro actually amplifies the sound for you and makes it worse.

          No, it’s not magic like the movies but these things are a metric-fuckton more effective than a lot of people seem to think they are.

        • strych9,

          I am well aware of how the db scale works. Yes, a 25db “suppression” is a big deal . . . until you do the math, and realize that a 100db noise (a fair average for SUPPRESSED guns) is still a VERY loud noise. Or did that little tidbit escape you, in your rush to seem educated about suppression?

  5. “Because, it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.”

    Yup, because “shall not be infringed” means gun laws are unconstitutional…

    • It shouldn’t be just ‘potentially’, it should be Absoslutely! Because ALL illegal gun laws are infringements. And they are also Tyrannical, Racist, Misogynist, and Terrorist! And this deprives us of our rights in the form of a serious felony under 18-USCC-241-242. Therefore all gun control laws should be repealed and nullified and those who violated our rights should be criminally prosecuted and imprisoned to the maximum extent of the Law of The Land!

      This can happen, assuming we can successfully remove the totally corrupted Marxist politicians (including RINOs) from office this coming November at the polls and install legitimate Egalitarian Patriotic Libertarian Constitutional Representatives to restore our liberties, economy, sovereignty, and American Way of Life.

  6. Sure Taliban. Er Talib. Only halfazzed snipers & special folks should carry a gat. Sure…

    • There was a time where it was illegal for it to be in Congress. Its religion is in direct conflict with our Constitution.

  7. Hearing proponents of no-bail releases, open borders and embracing “diversity” in all its forms feign concern over public safety is to laugh.

  8. “Because, it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.”

    Thank God!!!!!!!

  9. “They could fundamentally redefine the Second Amendment and change America’s gun laws.”
    They’ve already bastardized the definition.

    After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Oracle v Google I don’t trust these clowns to come to the correct decision on anything. Google’s blatant theft of computer code should have been a slam dunk decision in favor of Oracle. It sounds like some of the Justice’s were bought and paid for.

    • hhhmmm…
      just wondering how long I should pay royalties to Facebook for every instance my keyboard sends “01100110” to the processor to display “f” on the screen?

      I’m only asking since Apple patented the rounded corner rectangle.

      I mean, since every search engine pays the porn industry to display ‘THEIR’ work so many times every second of every day…forever.

      • “01100110 01110101 01101110 01101110 01111001” 😂
        According to Google’s internal emails they had discussed purchasing the 15 lines of code from Oracle but ended up stealing it instead. It could have been a one time purchase. The fact that Google talked about it internally shows that it was theft.

        • interesting,
          While O’Rourke and Biden ‘talk’ about taking my guns…I still have them. You still have yours too.

          I say we should impeach Trump over ‘talking’ to a Ukraine leader.

          People can ‘talk’ about murder but if it never happens then there is no crime. THIS is the very definition of form and function for the thought police.

        • Prndl,
          They didn’t just talk about it. The lines of code were a product of an employee’s work at Oracle. The fact that Google employees discussed purchasing the code from Oracle shows that they new it was of value. We can agree to disagree but I think it was theft.

        • @muckraker
          I don’t take issue with the idea that they knew it was of value and decided to just take it instead of giving money for it. That IS theft. Even though it is someones time and effort turn a switch on and off in a particular sequence over a particular period of time. Our legal system says this person owns ‘101’ and that person owns ‘010’. ROTFL… but who am I to argue?

          What I take issue with is the idea of prior discussion being a problem.

          Google did nothing wrong until the action of taking what wasn’t theirs. But you can ‘talk’ about stealing things all day long without ever actually doing it.

        • Tired of the bs,
          I was wondering that myself. After thinking about what Prndll said I was wondering if there were instances where just talking was a crime. If I solicit the murder of someone is that a crime or do I have to go farther as in handing over cash which shows intent?

        • I figure if they talked about it then actually did it it’s conspiracy and theft. But I’m not a lawyer, don’t play one on TV, and think most of them should be hung.

        • @muckraker
          The criminality of talking is most visible through social media. But perhaps even more than that is what was done to Trump.

          Facebook, Twitter, and google will banish you for wrong think to the point where the left (the squad and other relics of Washington socialism) would openly suggest “reprogramming” those that otherwise would be seen as ‘normal’ Americans. Even now we see all kinds of speech (just words) being treated as though no greater threat exists in all humanity. Just talking gets parents at school board meetings labeled as terrorists. There mere suggestion (through just talking) that there are only male and female gets anyone that utters such things as bigots to be ostracized.

  10. This Supreme Court decision will have a wide range of effects.It will allow law abiding citizens to finally be able to exercise their right of self defense finally.All the states that have May issue laws are the ones where crime and the criminals have the advantage.The spike in criminality in states with strict gun control continues.

    • Kinda gettin’ ahead of yourself there, Chief. We have NO FREAKIN’ IDEA what NYSRP decision is going to be, how broad it will be (SCOTUS historically tends to rule narrowly – don’t use every case to “establish a principle”). I am HOPING for a broad ruling – I’m not expecting one. They could rule on NYSRP on strictly procedural grounds, and create virtually no “precedent” whatsoever. I’ll hope for “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you idiots not understand?????” What I’ll end up with is mostly a matter of SCOTUS politics. If I had to put money on it, I’d bet on a fairly narrow ruling. But a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for???

  11. I am so [string of expletives] sick and tired of gun grabbers purposely deceiving the populace.

    Examples from this article:

    “A narrow ruling could involve striking down the ‘proper cause’ requirement for a permit. New York would struggle to restrict guns in public…”

    That statement is deceitful. New York’s laws are nothing more than words on paper–they are therefore meaningless to violent criminals and powerless to stop violent criminals from carrying firearms. The only demographic who would abide by such laws are stable, decent, law-abiding people. And yet those stable, decent, law-abiding people do not go around and attack people. New York government is therefore purposely interfering with the inalienable right to effective self-defense of those good people.

    “The ruling may also extend to the remaining … may-issue states … at a time when gun violence is rising across the U.S.”

    This statement is also deceitful because the good, stable, decent people who can legally acquire firearm carry permits are NOT the violent criminals who are increasing the amount of violent crime in the United States. Once again we see that governments are attempting to violate the inalienable right of good people to effective self-defense.

    “If the ruling is more expansive, it could ditch the entire public-safety framework that lower courts have been using to uphold carry restrictions.”

    The good, decent, and stable people of our nation are not a public-safety threat!

    “They could fundamentally redefine the Second Amendment…”

    The Supreme Court will hopefully UPHOLD our inalienable right to effective self-defense and by extension UPHOLD the Second Amendment. That is most certainly NOT redefining the Second Amendment.

    Fvcking scumbag deceitful manipulative gun grabbers. I hope there is an especially awful place reserved in Hell for those types.

    • The anti gunner’s have the blood of law abiding disarmed victims on their hands. And yes the word salad these bastards spew (besides being deceitful) is infuriating. I agree they need their own special place.

    • This statement is also deceitful because the good, stable, decent people who can legally acquire firearm carry permits are NOT the violent criminals who are increasing the amount of violent crime in the United States.

      As clearly demonstrated by the fact that violent crime is increasing in areas under “the entire public-safety framework”, not in those run by the good, stable, decent people who support 2A.

  12. Don’t think for one second the idiots on the USSC will give a positive ruling for the pro gun crowd…if nothing else it will be some kind of BS compromise ruling or a kick back…look at the total moron they just confirmed..and the three disappointments Trump brought in..we are in trouble!

  13. I dare not get my hopes up that the court will do anything outside of an extremely limited ruling. I just hope that if nothing else, the wealthy, powerful, and politically connected cronies end up getting treated the same as the little people and lose their special privileges.

  14. I wonder if we will ever get back to the Original Intent of The Second Amendment. To Keep means, simply to own, have firearms. To Bear means, also simply, to carry about, on one’s person. How complicated can they make this simple concept? This allows citizens to be armed and prepared, at all times to counter threats against person, community, and State. The Well Regulated Militia was every able-bodied male, now we include all People. Well Regulated means in the parlance of the time, to be in good working order. So everybody should be armed and familiar with the operation of their arms, and supply themselves with sufficient ammo and training to be an effective deterrent against attack by enemies both Foreign and Domestic!

    • “I wonder if we will ever get back to the Original Intent of The Second Amendment.”

      Nope.

      Under the theory that no individual right is absolute, the question always comes down to how much non-absoluteness can be imagined, and justified. “Compelling government interest” provides government superiority over the Constitution.

      And then, of course, there are “history and tradition” limits that can be placed on individual rights and liberties (often creating a “self-licking ice cream cone” for government).

      • No government is going to outlaw itself. It’s the people, not the law, which holds an abusive/tryannical government to account. It’s why the Declaration came first, then the Constitution.

        • “No government is going to outlaw itself.”

          Possibly true, however…….

          Government under “The Articles of Confederation” did quietly dissolve itself.

        • The Constitutional Convention strengthened, not dissolved, the central government. It may have replaced particular offices, but only the opponents of the process lost power and influence (and it wasn’t as though they were going to gain by doubling down on an unpopular system regardless).

    • Yup…To render a broad interpretation would be effectively denying current and future generations of lawyers their well-deserved income streams utilizing their “creative license” diplomas. The more narrow the ruling the more opportunities for suits and $$$ under the Lawyer Perpetual Employment Act.

    • You probably shouldn’t too loudly proclaim that, since some Leftist Scum just might be interested in taking you up on that trade.

      Just say’in… 🙂

      • Geoff, Let ’em try. they might find they have bitten off a lot more than they can chew.

  17. It’s probably a long-shot but I’m hoping that this case will finally knock out these ‘intermediate scrutiny’ non-sense that hangs over the 2A. No other right has that legal caveat over it, all because ‘liberal’ side of SCOTUS doesn’t like the result, not the constitutional merit of the argument.

    Honestly it seems like this case should be the perfect argument for it. NYs entire argument for their case is that they have an interest in keep it functional impossible to get a CCW because they want a monopoly on power, because they’re demented enough to think that makes everyone safer.

    • “It’s probably a long-shot but I’m hoping that this case will finally knock out these ‘intermediate scrutiny’ non-sense that hangs over the 2A.”

      That’s what I hope will happen.

      If the YouTube channel ‘Armed Scholar’ is correct, either Coney-Barrett or Clarence Thomas will author the decision.

      And if it’s Thomas… 🙂 🙂 🙂

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNPTimzLSF4

  18. …..it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.” The only words that should follow that are, “And, now we return you to our original show “….shall not be infringed.”

  19. “Because, it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.”

    If a gun law on the books infringes or restricts or delays or interferes with, or imposes a ‘permission’ process or requirement by permits or some other scheme on, a law abiding persons free-will choice to exercise their second amendment rights when and as they see fit for valid legal reasons – then those gun laws on the books should be called into question.

    No government entity (federal, state, county, local) infringes or restricts or delays or interferes with, or imposes a ‘permission’ process or requirement by permits or some other scheme on, a law abiding persons free-will choice to exercise their first amendment rights when and as they see fit for valid legal reasons or any of their other rights outlined in the first 10 amendments in the Bill Of Rights (normally, or as a matter of policy). So just as others are able to exercise their rights without the draconian infringement, oppression and persecution, of law the law abiding gun owner/possessors should not be subjected to such.

  20. Won’t be bad at all. New York will be “shall issue” but it will be like DC or worse in how hard it is to get a license. The anti gun crowd is actually quite strong right now if you consider the success they have had in Washington with magazine and “assault weapons” bans as well as taunting us with the extralegal “strengthening” of the NFA. We see Hughes can never be repealed and the ridiculous sbr/suppressor infringements are being piled on while we are helpless to stop it. Really the biggest win pro gunners have had is in the advancement of constitutional carry. I think the number will stagnate before 30/50.

    • Yes, he seems to believe Coney-Barrett or Thomas will author the decision.

      If it’s Thomas, prepare for a Leftist-Scum melt-down that will be *epic*.

      He also seems to think it will be the very last decision announced at the end of the term, and I agree on that, as well… 🙂

      • “If it’s Thomas, prepare for a Leftist-Scum melt-down that will be *epic*.”

        Not even Thomas can reverse the trend. He cannot get five votes to drastically rebuff generations of spreading infringements. It’s not what Thomas thinks or believes, but what he can get four other Justices to sign.

  26. @Lamp
    ” The whole thing about “silencers” is just SUCH complete bulls*** that I get a little ticked off about it.”

    My whole comment was just a goof on the crime deterrence of regulating silencers.

  27. @Debbie
    “Care to cite one of your “so many cases before” where Gun Control has ever been properly defined by its racist and genocide roots in a court, on the evening news, etc?”

    You seem way too deep in this one-note Samba; overthinking it. Point is/was, the Dims will find a way to evade the racism claim. Racism ain’t raycyst when pandering to the voting base.

  28. @drednicolson
    “It was probably sarcasm, but just in case: revolvers can’t be suppressed because of the cylinder gap. ”

    But, I tell ya’….I seen it on TV over and over. Revolvers go “pppffffftttt” with a silencer attached. I believe in truth over fact.

  29. Wow, so NYC would have to be like 45+ other states and, for that matter, the rest of NY state where it is possible to obtain a carry permit? How ever could it survive?

  30. The reliance we have on the courts to “get it right”, is itself, a symptom of a very, very, very serious disease.

    The fact that more people don’t recognize this and instead cheer on the cases strongly suggests that such a disease will eventually prove to be fatal.

  31. “The reliance we have on the courts to “get it right”, is itself, a symptom of a very, very, very serious disease. ”

    Yes, indeed. Weren’t we warned by the founders, regarding the SC as the supreme legislature?

  32. “Because, it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.”

    We can only hope.

    The anti-gunners, believing their own crap, thinks this is redefining the second amendment. THEY are the ones who redefined it. Illegally so.

  34. “Because, it potentially could mean that every gun law on the books is called into question.”

    AS WELL IT SHOULD!

  35. About 80% to 90% of households in my Pennsyvania County have firearms. Carry permits are way more common than liberals. Crime rates are close to zero. The homocide rate IS zero. Two Democratic counties, with about 20% of the state’s population, account for about 90% of the homocides. Philadelphia has been Deomcratic for 70 years straight. Our prisons are full of Democratic constituents. The stats would be even more wildly skewed if those two counties actually jailed all those who should be jailed. What is glaringly obvious is that crime, murder, and mayhem are overwhelmingly Democratic phenomena. Despite all this, Democrats are still a bunch of arrogant, self-righteous, condescending, elitist jerks.

  36. The article’s premise is invalidated by an unprofessional and amateurish omission of citations to support it’s broad use of statistics. Blaming guns and gun owners (instead of criminals that use guns) without justification cements Fast Company’s status as a Left-Wing rag in the anti-gun propaganda machine.

Comments are closed.